{"id":124026,"date":"2010-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-05-08T15:43:28","modified_gmt":"2016-05-08T10:13:28","slug":"commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Section-11Ac Of The Central … on 18 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs Section-11Ac Of The Central … on 18 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/314\/2009\t 13\/ 15\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 314 of 2009\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPUSHPANJALI\nDYEING & PRINTING MILL P LTD - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRJ OZA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/02\/2010  \n \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n
\tLeave to amend as per the
\n\tdraft amendment.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Commissioner of
\n\tCentral Excise & Customs, Surat-I has filed this tax Appeal
\n\tunder Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to
\n\tformulate the following substantial questions of law for
\n\tdetermination and consideration of this Court;\n<\/p>\n
 (i)
\n\t\t  Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
\n\t\tcase, the Tribunal is justified and has committed a substantial
\n\t\terror of law in confirming\/reducing the mandatory penalty imposed
\n\t\tunder Rule-25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with
\n\t\tSection-11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that the
\n\t\tconfirmed duty was deposited before issuance of the show cause
\n\t\tnotice?\n<\/p>\n
(ii)
\n\t\t Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
\n\t\tTribunal is justified and has committed a substantial error of law
\n\t\tin setting aside the penalty imposed upon the Director of the
\n\t\trespondent under Rule-26 of the Central Excise
\n\t\tRules, 2002 ?\n<\/p>\n
\tHeard Mr. R. J. Oza,
\n\tlearned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the
\n\torder passed by the authorities below.\n<\/p>\n
\tAt the time of hearing of
\n\tthis Tax Appeal Mr.Oza reframed the substantial questions of law
\n\twhich are as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 (a)
\n\t\tWhether or not benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to Section
\n\t\t11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be extended to such
\n\t\tperson who has not paid amount of interest determined by the
\n\t\tadjudicating authority payable under Section 11AB of the Central
\n\t\tExcise Act, 1944 ?\n<\/p>\n
(b)
\n\t\t Whether or not benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to Section
\n\t\t11AC of the Central Excise act, 1944 can be extended to such person
\n\t\twho has paid, before issuance of show cause notice only duty
\n\t\tdetermined by the adjudicating authority payable under Section
\n\t\t11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?\n<\/p>\n
(c)
\n\t\tWhether the adjudicating authority is statutorily obliged to set
\n\t\tout in his order the availability of benefit of reduced penalty
\n\t\tprescribed under proviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act,
\n\t\t1944 and to give option to such person liable for penalty under
\n\t\tSection 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ?\n<\/p>\n
(d)
\n\t\t Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal
\n\t\tis justified and has committed substantial error of law in placing
\n\t\treliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court in the
\n\t\tcase of CCE v. Malbro Appliances P. Ltd., reported in 2007 (79) RLT
\n\t\t109 (Del) \/ 2007 (208) ELT 503 (Delhi) and in case of K.P.Pouches
\n\t\tP. Ltd., reported in 2008 (85) RLT (483) (Delhi)\/ 2008(228) ELT 31
\n\t\t(Del)?\n<\/p>\n
(e)
\n\t\t Whether the impugned order made by the Tribunal can be said to be
\n\t\tan order in accordance with law?\n<\/p>\n
(f)
\n\t\t Whether or not in the facts and circumstances of the case the
\n\t\tTribunal has committed substantial error of law in reducing penalty
\n\t\tto 25% of the duty amount on the respondent ?\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Oza submitted that the
\n\tTribunal has not recorded any reasons setting out facts of the case
\n\tof the respondent and has mechanically passed order extending
\n\tbenefit of reduced penalty on the respondent. He has further
\n\tsubmitted that the team of Central Excise Officers had carried
\n\tsearch of the respondent’s premise on 21.07.2001 and detected
\n\tevasion of Central Excise duty payable by the respondent as on the
\n\tdate of the said search. The respondent having faced with the
\n\tsituation, deposited sum of Rs.2,24,584\/- on 23.7.2001. The show
\n\tcause notice was issued on 9.5.2005. The adjudicating authority has
\n\tpassed order dated 22.3.2006 demanding duty of Rs.2,24,584\/- and to
\n\trecover interest at the appropriate rate on the delayed short
\n\tpayment under Section-11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and
\n\timposed penalty of Rs.56,000\/- under Rule-25 of the Central Excise
\n\tRules on the respondent. The appellant preferred Appeal against the
\n\torder of imposition of reduced penalty and the Appellate
\n\tCommissioner by order dated 16.7.2007 allowed Appeal of the
\n\tdepartment. Therefore, the respondent filed Appeal before the
\n\tTribunal and Tribunal by its order dated 11.6.2008 reduced the
\n\tpenalty to the extent of 25% of duty amount.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Oza has submitted that
\n\tthe respondent has not complied with the preconditions for availment
\n\tof benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to Section 11AC of the
\n\tCentral Excise Act, 1944 and, therefore, the impugned order of the
\n\tTribunal is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Oza further submitted
\n\tthat the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of  K. P.
\n\tPouches (P) Ltd., reported in 2008 (228) ELT 31 (Del),
\n\tcannot be applied to the case of the respondent inasmuch as in the
\n\tcase of  K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd., (Supra)
\n\tthe adjudicating authority has not ordered recovery of interest
\n\tunder Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because in the
\n\tsaid case the assessee had deposited total amount of duty payable
\n\tunder Section 11A(2) of the Act on the date of detection of evasion
\n\tof duty itself. He has further submitted
\n\tthat the decision in the case of  Malbro
\n\tAppliances P. Ltd., reported in 2007 (208) ELT 503 (Del),
\n\talso cannot be applied because the facts of the case on hand are not
\n\tidentical to the facts of the case of the assessee in the  Malbro
\n\tAppliances P. Ltd., (Supra).\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the contrary, in view of settled proposition laid down by the
\n\tPunjab and Haryana Court in the case of  Machino
\n\tMontell (I) Ltd., reported in 2006(4) STR 177 (P & H)
\n\tas well as judgments of the Apex Court in the case of  Rajasthan
\n\tSpinning & Weaving Mills, reported in 2009(238) ELT 3 (SC),
\n\tDharmendra Textile Processors, reported in 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC),
\n\tand
\n\tdecisions of the Tribunal in the case of  Jawala
\n\tSteels Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2009 (238) ELT 694 (Tri   Kolkata),
\n\tand   Ponneri Steel Industries, reported in 2009
\n\t(238) ELT 295 (Tri   Chennai)
\n\tand such other cases, the Tribunal was required to allow department
\n\tto levy penalty on the respondent for
\n\tthe amount equivalent to his duty liability and pass order
\n\taccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Oza
\n\thas further submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal is in
\n\tdisregard of the law laid down by this Court in Tax Appeal No.140 of
\n\t2008 and Special Civil Application No.22931 of 2005 and such other
\n\tjudgments, which obligate upon the Tribunal to record cogent reasons
\n\tin support of conclusion arrived at by him in passing the final
\n\torder. In support of this submission Mr.Oza also relied on the
\n\tfollowing decisions  (I) Coats Viyella India
\n\tLtd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 (133) ELT 229 (SC)\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) TATA Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., Vs. Collector of
\n\tCentral Excise, 2006 (203) ELT 360 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of
\n\tCentral Excise Vs. Wimco Ltd., 2007 (217) ELT 3 (SC) (iv)
\n\tCommissioner of Central Exicse Vs. GTC Industries Ltd., 2008 (228)
\n\t505 (SC) (v) Commissioner of  Central Excise Vs.
\n\tSrikumar Agencies 2008 (232) 577 (SC) (vi) Stead Fast Paper Mills
\n\tVs. Collector of Central Excise, 1983 (12) ELT 744 (Guj.).\n<\/p>\n
\t We
\n\thave considered the submissions made by Mr.Oza and also perused very
\n\tminutely the order passed by the authorities below. As a matter of
\n\tfact, all these questions reframed by Mr.Oza are different facets of
\n\tthe main question as to whether the Tribunal is justified in
\n\treducing the penalty to 25% of the duty leviable on the respondent.
\n\tAll these aspects of the main question are already considered by
\n\tthis Court in its order dated 18.11.2009 in the case of  Messers
\n\tExotic Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Tax Appeal
\n\tNo.572 of 2007 with Tax Appeal No.869 of 2007 and Tax Appeal No.1942
\n\tof 2008, in the case of Commissioner of Central Exicse & Customs
\n\tVs. Rama Synsilk Mills P. Ltd., decided on 21.1.2010.
\n\tThis Court
\n\tafter considering the decision of  Commissioner
\n\tof Central Excise Vs. Malbro Appliances, 2007 (79)
\n\t  RLT 109 (Delhi), Union of India Vs. Dharmendra
\n\tTextiles, 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC), Union of India Vs. Rajasthan
\n\tSpinning & Weaving Mills, 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC), K. P. Pouches
\n\t(P) Ltd., Vs. Union of India, 2008 (228) ELT 31 (Delhi),
\n\tCommissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak Vs. J. R. Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.,
\n\t2009 (238) ELT 209,
\n\thas taken the view that the order passed by the Tribunal retaining
\n\tthe penalty of 25% of the duty amount seems to be quite justified.
\n\tFor the reasons recorded in the said two judgments, we do not feel
\n\tit necessary to take any different view in this Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever,
\n\tMr.Oza has made two more submissions in this Tax Appeal.  He has
\n\temphatically stated that the respondent has not complied with
\n\tpre-condition for availment of benefit of reduced penalty under
\n\tproviso to
\n\tSection 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the first
\n\tproviso, the duty amount was not paid with interest and even the
\n\treduced penalty of 25% is not deposited by the respondent within 30
\n\tdays from the date of such determination, as required under second
\n\tproviso to Section 11AC of the Act.  So far as second issue is
\n\tconcerned, Mr.Oza submitted that the adjudicating authority is not
\n\tunder any statutory obligation to set out in its order the
\n\tavailability of benefit of reduced penalty prescribed under proviso
\n\tto Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and to give an option to
\n\tsuch person liable for penalty under that Section. Both these issues
\n\twere dealt with by this Court in Tax Appeal No.572 of 2007 with tax
\n\tAppeal No.869 of 2007 decided on 18.11.2009. It is also important to
\n\tnote that the adjudicating authority has not calculated the interest
\n\tneither in the order-in-original nor even thereafter. It is,
\n\ttherefore, too much to expect from the respondent
\n\tassessee to pay the interest alongwith the duty amount in absence of
\n\tsuch calculation of interest. As far as statutory obligation of the
\n\tadjudicating authority is concerned, the Central Excise Department
\n\titself has issued Circular on 22.5.2008 wherein it is clarified that
\n\tin all cases wherein penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is
\n\timposed the provisions contained in the first and second proviso of
\n\tSection 11AC should be mandatorily mentioned in the
\n\torder-in-original itself by the adjudicating authority. It is,
\n\ttherefore, not open for the revenue to agitate this issue before the
\n\tCourt in contradiction of the Circular issued by the Central Excise
\n\tDepartment. This Court in  Messers Exotic
\n\tAssociates (Supra)
\n\thas
\n\tdirected the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order giving
\n\toption to the assessee to pay the duty amount within 30 days by
\n\tmaking it explicitly clear in the order itself that if the assessee
\n\t wants to avail such option he
\n\tis permitted to do so.  In the case on hand since the duty amount
\n\thas already been paid by the respondent assessee and if the interest
\n\tand\/or reduced penalty of 25% were not paid by the respondent
\n\tassessee, the adjudicating authority may send a communication to the
\n\trespondent assessee indicating therein that the particular amount of
\n\tinterest and\/or 25% of the penalty of the duty amount is not paid by
\n\tthe respondent assessee and hence if the assessee wants to avail the
\n\tbenefit of the reduced penalty of 25%, such amount of interest
\n\tand\/or penalty of 25% should be paid within 30 days from the date of
\n\treceipt of such communication, failing which they would be liable to
\n\tpay penalty under Section 11AC equivalent to the amount of duty.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore
\n\tparting, we observe that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be
\n\tsaid to be a non-speaking and non-reasoned order. The authorities
\n\tcited by Mr.Oza in support of his submission that a non-speaking
\n\torder is passed by the Tribunal and hence it deserves to be
\n\tdismissed, were duly considered by us and we are of the view that
\n\tthey are not applicable to the facts of the present case.  The
\n\tTribunal while dismissing the Departmental Appeal observed that the
\n\tquantum of the penalty is to the extent at around 25% of the duty
\n\tamount and does not call for any interference.  The Tribunal is
\n\ttaking consistent view in the matters of penalty levied under
\n\tSection 11AC and when the duty amount is paid before issuance of
\n\tshow cause notice, the penalty is reduced to 25% of the duty amount.
\n\tIf the duty amount with interest is not paid in time and even
\n\treduced penalty of 25% of the duty amount is not paid in time and
\n\toption is not given to the respondent assessee, we have taken the
\n\tview that such option should be given to the assessee and period of
\n\t30 days would commence from the date
\n\tof giving such option. In this view of the matter, no interference
\n\tis called for in the order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\t Subject to the above
\n\tclarification this Tax Appeal stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
          ( K. A. PUJ, J.)
\n(RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J.)<\/p>\n
kks<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs Section-11Ac Of The Central … on 18 February, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/314\/2009 13\/ 15 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 314 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA ========================================================= […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124026","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs Section-11Ac Of The Central ... on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Section-11Ac Of The Central ... on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-08T10:13:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Section-11Ac Of The Central … on 18 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-08T10:13:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2059,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Section-11Ac Of The Central ... on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-08T10:13:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Section-11Ac Of The Central … on 18 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner vs Section-11Ac Of The Central ... on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Section-11Ac Of The Central ... on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-08T10:13:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Section-11Ac Of The Central … on 18 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-08T10:13:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010"},"wordCount":2059,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010","name":"Commissioner vs Section-11Ac Of The Central ... on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-08T10:13:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-section-11ac-of-the-central-on-18-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Section-11Ac Of The Central … on 18 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124026","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=124026"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124026\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124026"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124026"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}